Q&A from Fall Forum 2024-001 Solicitation Panel

Topics 1-4 

Question #1: (Topic 4) – Do you have any standoff distances in mind?
Answer #1:  No, nothing specific.

Question #2: (Topic 1) – Will JHTO provide environmental requirements (ie: CO2)?
Answer #2:  JHTO will check with AFRL to see if they can provide anything at the Distribution A level.  In your proposal, document any assumptions.  If selected to proceed to award, JHTO will work with the proposer on technical parameters.  It is suggested to think about this from a systems engineering perspective.  

Question #3: (Topic 1) – You mentioned a mitigation test.  Does that indicate that no engine test will be required during the 3 years, or will it be expected?
Answer #3: JHTO expects a relevant subscale demonstration.  It is expected that performers will deliver a component ready to be tested, but making testing arrangements with AFRL is not part of the scope of work.  

Question #4: (Topics 1&2) – Will AFRL provide capabilities for testing?  For example, in Topic 2, a two-inch diameter?  In Topic 1, a two by two, what geometry?
Answer #4: JHTO will circle back with AFRL for any additional Distribution A guidance.  JHTO recommends proposing something relevant.

Question #5: (Topic 2) – You mentioned seals, is it just temperature/hot combustion gases or plasma, as well?  
Answer #5: It is open to all types of applications, and we would accept application for high temperature seals and joints.

Question #6: (Topic 2 follow-up) – Dynamic or passive sealing systems?
Answer #6: Either could be proposed.

Question #7: (Topic 1) – As you develop materials for the components, can it be anything?  Is there a focus on one type more than another?
Answer #7:  Anything that we do not have a solid solution for now. If you can make an improvement (cost, manufacturability, intense environments, etc.) and make us want to switch to your device then make a proposal around that. 

Question #8: (Topic 3) – After listening to the HITS talk on Day 1, is it assumed that the test geometry is the same as HITS?  If so, will that geometry be made available?
Answer #8: You can use that geometry, although JHTO is not sure how you would get it, since it may not be shareable.  You can use a different geometry but explain why and the technical merit of using it.  HITS is defensive and this topic is not restricted to defensive, strike is also okay.  

Question #9: (Topic 4) – Can lasers be included as a possible method?
Answer #9: Yes, this is open ended.

Topic 5:

Question #10: You mentioned a Divert and Attitude Control System (DACS) system, directed towards fluid mechanics and low temperature flows, is that a correct assumption? Cold gas piece of work only?
Answer #10: Plenty of options – hot or cold gas (reacting flows are different). Proposers should decide which way to go based off their team’s expertise. JHTO is open to solutions for all temperature regimes. Can be defensive or offensive. The proposer should choose the complexity of your vehicle.

Question #11: Boundaries for re-entry?
Answer #11: There is a wide range of MACH numbers and altitude regimes. Demonstrate your knowledge suitable to your proposal. What is the safest, most reasonable. Think of timeline and cost.

Question #12: You mentioned that integration costs should not exceed $1M. Is that included in the $9M or in addition?
Answer #12: Included in the $9M.

Question #13: You mentioned that this should be student team centered. How many? Are you thinking an undergraduate senior design program or several graduate students?
Answer #13: There should be meaningful student involvement and can include anyone who needs experience (i.e.: young technicians). There is no set number or expectations, but JHTO does not look to fund only tenured professors with post docs.

Question #14: Is the Hotshot for Hypesonics (H4H) rocket spin stabilized?
Answer #14: Yes. Caveat, yo-yo D-spin can be put on rockers for depressed trajectories; full canvas to push boundaries of sounding rockets.

Question #15: There are a variety of MACH-TB providers. Is the onus on the proposers to select the correct provider?
Answer #15: No, the responsibility is on the MACH-TB team to match the performer with a launch provider and configuration that meets the payloads environmental requirements. We recommend not planning an experiment with a specific launch provider in mind as the contract is currently undergoing re-compete. Rather, identify the optimal environment for the application of your experiment and allow the government to identify for your optimal test configuration.

Question #16: What if I select launch provider “A” and DOD determines that they are not up to snuff?
Answer #16: If something were to happen with provider “A”, JHTO would sort it out with MACH-TB.

Question #17: If MACH-TB is virtual and there is no POC, then it is difficult to prepare a team and budget. If universities charge 25 – 35% overhead, that $1M would be a lot of the budget.
Answer #17: MACH-TB is not a theoretical program and has been operating for 1 ½ years with $160M/year spent on flight testing. Current providers are expected to continue, but MACH-TB is looking to expand. NSWC Crane will be the POC for integration. Specific contacts will be provided to the performers post-award. Please see Question #18.

Question #18: How would the integration efforts be funded if not a subaward?
Answer #18: The proposer should consider the amount of funding needed for integration. Those funds would be included in the budget total, but the actual integration funding would be direct funded by JHTO and not included in the amount received by the lead institution.

Question #19: How would you work this into the budget?
Answer #19: For example – $8M to lead university, $1M MACH-TB. It would be the same situation for any partner that could not accept government flow through funding. JHTO will work with the consortium manager and WHS to fund everyone. The cheapest integration has been $200,000.

Question #20: Does the 51% to consortium member apply to the $8M or $9M?
Answer #20: It applies to the total scope of the proposal.

Question #21: Clarification on the deliverable. Is it test hardware or a CDR at the end of the POP? Or both?
Answer #21: The final deliverable is a flight readiness test review (final design review).

Question #22: Will the test review be at the end of the 3 years? What is the plan for integration ($1M) – is it included since the flight test is not included?
Answer #22: PI will work with flight test provider to ensure it is ready to be integrated within scope. This will not be done in a silo. JHTO and MACH-TB will be tracking throughout the project. There will be multiple rounds of communication with the performer concerning flight regimes, open slots, open vehicles, etc. and the proposer should budget for those meetings. A notional schedule of timeline engagement: Full scale (T-18 months), Sounding rockets (T-12 months), Hardware delivery (3 – 8 months before). 6 months is ideal. Flight would be a separate effort.

Question #23: Does each proposer need to make MACH-TB a part of the proposal? Are quotes needed?Answer #23: Everyone’s integration costs are different, but those numbers always change. Make sure to show that you understand what it takes to accomplish this event. The MACH-TB team is not that big and cannot work with all the proposers. MACH-TB uses a scale of complexity to determine the cost of an experiment. The definition of complexity is based on what changes if any will be required to the test bed (rockets), ability to accommodate other payloads on the same mission, and any unique data requests. The MACH-TB complexity goes from 1 to 4, where a complexity level 1 is a payload that meets the Test Open Systems Architecture (TOSA) design interfaces and can allow up to 10 additional experiments of similar SWAP on board. Level 2 would have some complexity to include potential bespoke interfaces, integration with additional sensors, non-standard data collection means. Level 3 is a complex experiment that is a bespoke design that limits additional ride-share opportunities, and Level 4 is a dedicated mission, with a separating front end requiring additional test assets and no ride-share opportunities.

Question #24: It is a good idea to understand the size of the test flight model. Can you provide any FAQs?
Answer #24: Specs will not be releasable in time for proposal deadline. For sounding rockets, 16-inch diameter. For full scale rockets, 42-inch diameter payload. There are reference vehicles available through the consortium.

Question #25: Integration is the most difficult part. To push everyone into 1/9 will be very challenging especially for the institutions who haven’t done it. 30-40% integrations will take that much. Can we architect into risk reduction tests (ground tests) to build integration?
Answer #25: Yes, the community can do ground testing so that it is ready to go. There is cost sharing for the $1M done by JHTO and MACH-TB. MACH-TB was designed to maximize ride share opportunities and drive down over all costs. Emphasize pathways to deliver hardware. Design plan is critical to the proposal. MACH-TB will be on the review board.

Question #26: With the MACH-TB program, are there provisions for separation before flight?
Answer #26: Yes, the MACH-TB program has the capability of separating payloads. However, due to the increased cost and complexity of such experiments, the performer must justify why the separation provides an order of magnitude greater value to the community.

Question #27: Is there historical data – mechanisms/expectations to connect to current activities to help with plan? Some knowledge is limited. 
Answer #27: Collaboration is key. It’s hard to force industry to work with each other. But JHTO will make the introductions and encourage collaboration and sharing. There are lots of existing relationships and we will make the introductions but cannot force a collaboration.

Question #28: Is there a burning platform beyond workforce development?
Answer #28: There are other considerations beyond workforce development. This problem is important to our offense and defense priorities. Additionally, we do not know everything about the physics of this problem. This is a good problem for this community to solve.

Question #29: Are you reluctant to have pre-flight? Captive versus free flight?
Answer #29: It increases cost and complexity. Whatever is proposed must fit in the budget.

Question #30: As you are evaluating the payload in the front end with multidisciplinary actions, how will you evaluate the costs?
Answer #30: We will evaluate what is the total experiment going to look like. If you have a complex experiment, but have no testing building up, then we won’t believe it’ll happen. If you have a simple experiment and not too much technical development with a ton of students, then it’ll look like you’re just puffing up students for work force development. We are applied research but need to add students.

Question #31: Given the range you fly at, how will the vehicle not hit anything once you release it?
Answer #31: There is a flight coming up in FEB and we are working on the safety analysis and pulling MACH G turns and open-source calculation of mass casualty.

Question #32: Can you not release the specifics of sounding rockets? Can you give the altitude?
Answer #32: It is a challenge to simplify a family of trajectories with critical capabilities, due to sensitive information. We are working to sanitize those basic envelopes but those are not as useful. Right now, our design reference missions are not releasable. The MACH-TB has a very large scope of providers, providing an array of launch trajectories, to include ballistic, depressed, separating, re-entry vehicle, and maneuvering. The requirement is for the performer to identify the exact environment in which their design will optimally perform and capture data, then the MACH-TB will match it to the correct flight vehicle.

Question #33: If you give out the booster stack and envelopes, we can generate our own trajectories.
Answer #33: Some of the booster stacks are in development. Some data is available online. As an example, you can go online and look at the Oriole or Terrier rockets.

Question #34: What is the data you want to collect for a MACH-TB test slot?
Answer #34: A MACH-TB Experiment Submission sheet is attached. As discussed, it is incumbent on the performers to identify their desired test environment and unique data products. The MACH-TB Payload Details form found on the solicitation page is being provided for awareness but should not be submitted until after the selection process. Once submitted, the MACH-TB team will match the submitted test requirements to a flight manifest on a launch vehicle capable of capturing the requirements.

Question #35: Will the flight test data be shared with the community at the end of the program?
Answer #35: Government purpose rights is de facto. The goal of Test Resource Management Center (who runs MACH-TB) is to have access to testing infrastructures. We want to correlate the data across facilities to break the trend of repeated failures due to lack of shared data. We want to create a data repository then you can look at it across the community so the services, academia, and industry can work together.

Question #36: Will the team that wins have access to the database?
Answer #37: Absolutely. The goal is for the database across networks at appropriate classification levels.

Question #38: Interceptor programs are classified. This is CUI. Do you anticipate this project moving to classified?
Answer #38: We do not expect this project to become so specific it becomes classified.

Question #39: Do you have expectation of number of students or project funding for students?

Answer #39: Please choose the number of students as appropriate for the planned work. As an example, if you lose your student, progress stalls, and you need a no cost extension, you do not have enough students on the project. Propose what is reasonable and achievable for you to complete the work.